majority of justices then were exercising a veto on legislation they found to be unconstitutional. Today the California Supreme Court is not satisfied to merely veto the actions of the people taken by initiative or through their elected representatives in the legislature or on school boards; they assert the power to legislate busing plans... and to compel compliance by force, if school boards do not come up with what they determine is a “reasonably feasible desegregation plan.”

My complaint was addressed to the 1976 Crawford I decision which had transformed what may be fairly said to be dictum in Jackson, supra, into state constitutional doctrine:

... In California, all public school districts bear an obligation under the state Constitution to undertake reasonably feasible steps to alleviate school segregation, regardless of the cause of such segregation. 17 Cal.3d at 301-2.

... Busing is one potential tool which may be utilized to satisfy a school district's constitutional obligations in this field.... Once a school board defaults in its constitutional task, the court, in devising a remedial order, is not precluded from requiring the busing of children as part of a reasonably feasible desegregation plan.... Id. at 309.

My book, Busing — Opposed (p. 41-43), reports a busing order under that doctrine in Crawford v. Board of Education, Superior Court No. C-822,854, June 6, 1980, Daily Journal Report, pages 3-91. There, the trial court ordered the Los Angeles Board of Education to prepare a plan pursuant to a schedule (Id. at 68-88) fixed by that Court “which will be instituted in September 1980 for the school year 1980-81.” Id. at 68.

Busing — Opposed summarizes (pp. 41-43) that court's compulsory plan whereby the Los Angeles board (over objections by it and Bustop, Inc., representing many citizens) had to assign that September to schools designated by the Court between 80,000 and 100,000 first- through ninth-grade students attending approximately 165 elementary and junior high schools. The order was enforceable by contempt proceedings, and in